Contact Info / Websites

Entry #2

I would like to say somthing.

2011-11-09 00:54:40 by NinjaThumb

(NOTE: This is refering to the "2 Guys & a Jigsaw Puzzle", so go watch it before you read this.")

First: Neither Evolution Theory NOR the Creation Theory have been proven.

Second: The Bible was wrighten 2000 years ago when man still thought that you thought with your heart and that mass in your head was useless. In other words, you need to take into account that the Bible was wrighten for an adence that had NO grasp on science.

Saying that, I am 100% sure that if Jesus were to come amoy us today, he would speak in terms we could understand.

And Third: Science has proved nothing, there has been no evedence for anything science has used to try to explan creation with a creator.

If you want me to put it in terms of a puzzle, it would be like this:

The rim of the puzzle is our world, you know the simple things like "We need air to live" and "You should eat food and drink water" things like that. And then they try to explan why/how we got to were we are by puting a peice in the middle that seems to fit becuase there are no peices around it to show otherwise.

But in order for the throey to become fact, they need to have peices connecting all together. So they start to expand on ther throery and make peices that fit with the middle peice. But what happens when they get to the edge? It doesn't fit, and they have to make more new peices, and maybe even try to expand the eges of the puzzle a bit.

That is all I wanted to say, I am sorry about my missspellings, I am midly disslecsic.


Comments

You must be logged in to comment on this post.


darksteel333darksteel333

2011-11-09 01:21:55

Oh, I get it, you're trolling cause you want everyone to think you're a (Insert Mexican name here) freak and that you believe in (Insert religious assertion here) that was taught to you when you were (Insert impressionable age here). Not bad, now I for one would love to debate this with you, however I find my comments a bit harsh for (Insert innocent joke word here) ears that you may or may not have. Now as far as the flash was done, it was executed well as compared to your own so..... that's it.


AnonymousAlchemistAnonymousAlchemist

2011-11-09 10:34:23

I would like to say something too.

First: Creation "theory" isn't a credible theory in science. In fact, the term "theory" in science actually means a lot- it's not just some random thought or baseless guess- that definition would be more fitting of a hypothesis (but that's STILL not quite the right definition). A theory (in science terms, not everyday language) is a statement that grew from a hypothesis, in that there's been heavy research into it, and there is plenty of evidence that the scientific community agrees on (which is quite difficult). In that context, Creation Theory isn't really a theory- no credible scientist would consider it a theory. If you need more, in sciene, you can't prove things; only disprove ideas, or fail to disprove ideas. Don't try to tell me to disprove a negative (or rather, ask me to prove something does not exist-doesn't work that way). And if you need EVEN MORE: Germ theory- not proven, but I think you'd agree that it's little germs that get you sick over an imbalance of humors or angry spirits- theory of gravity- not proven, but I'm pretty sure I'm not floating to the moon right now... Theory of computation- not proven, but I'm pretty sure I'm using a computer...

Second- You're referring to the ancient Egyptian culture, not every culture 2000 years ago. You also need to take into account that the Bible was not just written for an audience that had no grasp on science, but the authors themselves were clueless on science.

Third- I don't quite understand what you mean, but let me try this. Science deliberately stays away from any claims of a creator (not just the Christian God, but also the Indian Gods, the Greek Gods, and so on...). Abiogenesis, which is what I think you're referring to, is the study of how life begins from inorganic matter... it's a study, not a theory (yet).

That puzzle analogy was terrible. You assume there is a finite amount of knowledge that is attainable. For all we know, there is INFINITE knowledge (much like the flash animation depicted), and it seems to be so. When we discover something new, more questions arise around it, and eventually more discoveries are made out of the quest to answer those questions. Science doesn't assume there's an "edge" or limit.

That's all I wanted to say. I'm sorry about my correct spelling, I am mildly interested in the English language.